See, the only "people" Hillary has are center Dems. Open up the primaries and we've seen what happens but of course you'd be against that and too afraid because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Hillary is leading both.

The American public stands with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Again, I'll take Michigan and other open primary states like HI Alex for $100. And for $200 I'll take $27 donations and fundraising.

If Hillary is so popular with all of America, why is she being out fundraised by the majority of America who supports Bernie?
Why is Hillary losing open primary states where everybody can vote?

I know, facts don't fit do they?

You're trying so hard to spin, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is defeating Bernie by large margins of popular vote and most importantly delegates.

She's going to be the Democratic nominee and our next President.

You can't spin that.

Why is it so hard to understand that she is ONLY popular among Dems and when primaries are opened up she loses by huge margins.

You can't spin this--she is weaker in a GE than Bernie and she loses to Kasich. Bernie is the only one who beats them all.
IF and that's a big IF, Hillary is the nominee, you Dems lose the general because a Hillary nomination will energize the GOP base in a way never seen before while millions sit home because they can't stand Hillary.

It's a landslide scenario and Dems can't win without Indie voters.

Fact.

She's winning the Democratic nomination....that's what she's winning.

It's going to be another Democratic president for at least the next 4 years.

Be happy.

No win situation for many of us.
And sorry, Bernie will win it and when not Dems lose the general.

Democrats get to choose their party's nominee. She only needs "Dems ONLY" as you put it, to stand with her in the primary, because that's who chooses the nominee. As has been stated over and over again, primary voting patterns do not correspond or correlate to GE voting patterns.

Not really a foreign concept.

especially since Dems can open in open primaries, amiright?

I don't get why that is so upsetting to some people. If one doesn't like that, there is the option of starting your own party. Sanders could have started his own party where he declared himself the nominee without any voters to get in the way.

How many people have given to Bernie who are indies and yet you want them to not vote in the primaries? Yup, exclusion plain and simple and nothing but. Sorry, your ideal is conservative in nature.

Sanders should have run as an independent.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/blogs/vote-up/2015/12/08/working-families-party-zephyr-teachout-endorse-bernie-sanders/76996244/

<For the Working Families Party, which has an influential role in New York politics as a third party, said it was its first-ever national endorsement.

At a recent Working Families Party membership vote, the party said that Sanders won support of 87 percent of delegates compared to 12 percent for Clinton, the former two-term New York senator, former first lady and secretary of state.

"We want to live in a nation that allows all people to live a decent life, no matter what is in their parents' bank account or who is in their family tree," the party said in a statement.

"But the super-rich have used their economic muscle to buy political muscle, and unless you're one of them, what you think government should do basically doesn't count.">

It listed the organization in one column, the candidate they supported in the next and the 3rd column was the method. . . it was leadership or membership.
In every case Hillary was endorsed by the leadership and
in ever case Bernie was endorsed by polling the members.

(It's funny but right now it says there are 7 replies but I can only see yours, . . .must have gotten under the Clinton supporter's skin --- hidden to me)

But it's the truth.

Looks like you struck a nerve. I guess they are comfortable with the idea of enlightened leaders telling the masses what is best for them.

The truth hurts. Ouch!

The projection is strong with these ones.